Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

An Employee

A Security Firm

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

CA-00016944-001

19/01/2018

The Complainant works as a Security Shift Supervisor at one of the Respondent’s client’s site.   The Complainant has been employed on this site for 18 years under a number of different employers. The Respondent became his most recent employer as a result of a change of ownership, in March 2017, which took place under TUPE.

The Complainant works a four-week shift pattern comprising of two weeks nights and two weeks days. In June 2017 the Complainant applied for a vacancy, which he considered existed as a result of the departure of a colleague supervisor, who worked days only.

While the Respondent indicted that no vacancy actually existed, a roster change was mooted that would see the Complainant move to a one-week nights/three-week days shift. This arrangement was acceptable to the Complainant and, it appears, also to his colleague Supervisor whose agreement was necessary to make the change workable. However, notwithstanding this, the proposed change was never implemented.

Despite the Complainant engaging his Trade Union representative on the matter, no progress was forthcoming and, as a result, the matter was referred to the WRC.

Having carefully considered the submissions of both the Complainant and Respondent at the first Hearing, I was satisfied that, as there appeared to be a genuine willingness on all sides to reach an amicable and mutually agreeable resolution of this dispute, that this would be best achieved in direct discussions at local level.

Consequently, I issued an interim recommendation that the Respondent engage in immediate discussions with the Complainant, in an effort to achieve mutual resolution of the matter pertaining to his roster.

Following engagement by the parties at local level, significant progress was made in restructuring the rosters with a view to accommodating the Complainant’s requests for a move to primarily day shifts roster. This progress involved the Respondent creating new shifts arrangements, which involved changes to existing shifts for a number of the Complainant’s colleagues.

When the new roster was presented, it provided the Complainant with his preference for a shift roster comprising of three weeks of day shifts and one week of night shifts. Unfortunately, a by-product of this new roster was that the Complainant’s total number of shifts dropped by one from fourteen to thirteen. The Complainant was obviously dissatisfied with this development and raised it locally through his Trade Union representative. The matter was then referred back for adjudication when local efforts did not achieve a resolution in advance of this scheduled hearing.

During the second Hearing both parties engaged in a positive and constructive manner, the result of which was an agreed approach to the resolution of the matter. This approach is encapsulated in recommendation set out in the following section.

Having carefully considered all the aspects of this complaint and the discussions between the parties, particularly those at the second Hearing, I issue the following recommendation:

“The Complainant will be given priority in the allocation of an extra shift, per four-week roster cycle, arising from any ad hoc or unscheduled shifts during that period.  

The Respondent’s obligations in this regard will be fulfilled once the Complainant is offered one extra shift per roster cycle. However, in relation to other ad hoc or unscheduled shifts that may arise, the Complainant will be considered in line with normal practice and in conjunction with his other colleagues in these allocations.

This recommendation should be given effect by the parties from the date of the recommendation. The situation may be reviewed at local level, after six months of operation, if either party feels the recommendation is not being implemented as intended.

In the meantime, all parties should approach the implementation and operation of the recommendation with good will and in good faith.”